• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

A Whole Lotta Sense

Art K.

Art K.

The Voodoo You Do!
An admin from Pink Fish posted the following thoughts. I couldn't have said it better and it reflects how I feel at present.

Tony L " My aim these days is to get my main two sources (vinyl & CD) to sound as tonally similar as possible as I need to be able to enjoy both and certainly don't want to be farting about moving speakers around or applying EQ to things to achieve this. In other words I aim for as flat a response from my turntable as possible, as the CD already has one! I can then optimise speaker position etc for the system as a single coherent whole. I tend to find systems where one source sounds massively better than the other have obvious response aberrations and tend to reflect the owner's preferences when it comes to speaker position etc, i.e. they've focused on getting vinyl to sound great and CD sounds thin and lean (or vice versa). That's when it all becomes rather useless from my perspective as the system then starts to choose the music. I just want to be able to select any decently recorded and mastered record or CD and enjoy it - an audio system is after all but a tool for a job, it shouldn't be allowed to get above it's station!"
 
Register to hide this ad
I've really tried to get my 3 sources (CD/SACD/vinyl) performing to the same relative level too these last few years - don't want to worry about the format, just enjoy the music that is available. I think I've kind of got it there as I just don't think about format when deciding what to play - just what I want to hear - and at the end of the evening, I rarely notice it's all vinyl, or CDs, etc.

This has changed recently though - my best SACD player is acting up and since it's pretty much un-fixable, my format balance is broken. I do want digital streaming too (including DSD) so I'm now back to striving for that balance that lets me forget about 'format'.
 
The system starts to choose the music . . .
Been there, done that, over it. I absolutely agree with Tony L, and Art K, for that matter.
It's a great reminder that it's not the gear, but the listening that matters.
 
I've been after that same thing, and for my purposes, its been achieved as long as I use my Juicy Music phono preamp (without it, vinyl gets the short end of the listening stick).

It's interesting as there's been some leapfrogging going on. At first, when the VPI came, vinyl went far out in front. Then I got better digital, so it went out front. Then I got a better cart for the VPI, then a new phono preamp (klyne) and things equaled out. Then I got even better digital (Emm Labs) so it went out front. Now, I'm using the Zyx/Juicy Music VPI combo and the Berkeley DAC with my computer and they're both as good as I could want. But man, that was a lot of work and you know what..I still prefer digital because once I got them sounding very similar, it became much more apparent what a pain in the ass vinyl is when it was offering no sonic benefit over the other option.
 
Equal is where I want to be, too. I think I'm pretty darn close. My Rega CD player and my Rega turntable can sound remarkably similar with good examples of both media.
 
I aim for the same thing, but still find there are some things my vinyl setup does better than any of my four CD players, and vice versa. I'm not worried about it, I just enjoy the strengths of a given format when I'm listening to it, and if its weaknesses become too distracting, I attempt to minimize those through tweaking and setup changes. That's all part of the fun of being an audiophile for me.
 
IMO, I have my system down to where my digital and vinyl playback sound about the same (as long as the volume is matched). I leave my tone controls centered and everything sounds good that way to me. No fiddling required.

I agree it makes sense to try to get the turntable to match the eq characteristics of the digital player.
 
Last edited:
I enjoy the discussions in this forum, particularly this one already, though it reinforces for me that I am nowhere close to where you guys are on the continuum of experience.

I have to agree with Dave that I don't mind some tweaking as it is part of the 'audiophile experience' for me at present. Perhaps my goals will be refined in the future.
 
Tony makes a lot of just plain old good sense over at the Pink Fish. Always liked his attitude and the way he conducts business over there. Tim
 
Well this will be interesting. My CDP certainly is great with good dynamics not edgy and great extention and all. And I've listened to some outstanding players that were said to be vinyl like in sound, but both formats sound remarkably different. At least to my ears. I guess I don't know if you guys are talking about in tone or just really trying to get the two different formats to sound identical.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Lin said:
I'm not worried about it, I just enjoy the strengths of a given format when I'm listening to it, and if its weaknesses become too distracting, I attempt to minimize those through tweaking and setup changes. That's all part of the fun of being an audiophile for me.
Click to expand...

I agree Dave, they do have their strengths (and weaknesses) which never seems to go away completely but I don't find that to be a big deal when they get closer. And getting them 'closer' has absolutely meant a good dose of tweaking for me - roller bearing footers, interconnects, tube rolling, ground circuit tweaks inside the DAC and on and on and that's just the digital stuff - vinyl is a whole different world!

All fun though and the payoff when you get to format not mattering so much is certainly worth it.
 
I grew up listening to my parents' Bell "Hi-Fi"-a mono tube amp, Garrard changer (!), & seperate speaker...It also had several different positions for optimal playback on the various "LP" records of the day-NAB, AES, FFRR, & Flat...I guess its what you were 1st introduced to, but FEW of the modern systems I have heard come close to THAT old1950s set up...Modern stuff sounds "Hissy" or something..Maybe its just me...
 
Having read Tony L's statement in context and in response to others comments about the 2M line of carts and TT's discussion.....a flat response in all our gear is a goal, and certainly the better a manufacturer is able to deliver the goods as totally flat and accurate the more it may cost but,..... accurate and flat just may not sound good to every one. We all have different hearing and like different tones. Certainly at my age, and the posse of audio hobbyist I know in my age and older... hearing deficiencies become common. Lots of guys suffer from hearing in the treble and high area of sound and a flat response across the board wont be as good and may sound awful. While I don't personally suffer from such ailments, and do a lot of research into the gear I chose because I know what sound I am after, and I know what I can afford.... I do think if one is looking for a flat response across their system...or even if one does not want a flat responce, or even may not want his TT to be as flat as his CDP, careful planing and research is needed and more importantly, one should know what sound he is after. Knowing such information of what sound we are after, will not only help in our spending, but we are not chasing a sound only to find we where chasing the wrong sound.
 
Last edited:
I have never aimed for 'flat response'. That's saying that there is a sound which I should listen to whether or not I like it.

Instead, I aim for enjoyable sound. I don't care if it's flat or not.

Why would anyone want to hear something that they do not care for, just because it measures accurately?

Now, if a 'flat response' also happens to be what sounds the best to you, then of course, I get it. In my case, that's not an accurate statement, though.

So I go for what I like, not what the numbers tell me I'm supposed to like. Screw that noise.
 
The takeaway for me is that while I used to balance trying to get a format to sound its absolute best now will change to trying to get all formats to sound their best in a comparable way.

I was doing that, in that I have some media in SACD, DVD-A, CD and vinyl, but this points a change in focus.
At one time, my approach was to compare the different formats as a format assessment tool while accounting for the requirements of mastering differing for the different formats.
Now, I believe my approach will be to do what I did at one time but integrate also getting each format to be as comparable as the mastering, dithering, or digital format rendering will allow, because I plan to add high-rez rips or downloads to the mix also.
 
For me his meaning was simple. He wants all of his sources to be equally enjoyable. For him that is a flat response for someone else that may be an "enjoyable sound". If every source sounds equally good it makes it less likely that someone would choose what they listen to based on sound quality rather than their desire to hear it. That doesn't pertain to all folks because there are plenty of people who don't care what their audio playback sounds like and they still enjoy music. I think he was targeting the group who may have their music selections affected by sound quality, including himself.
 
Yeah, what I took from it, is getting all sources to be equally adept at producing the sound that you're into. Whether that's flat or not, doesn't matter. They should be equally enjoyable. And that's what I've been after...I like one particular sound, and want all formats to have it. I don't want one that does one thing, another that does another thing, and yet another that does another thing. I'm not into formats, I'm into music.

Now that I've basically accomplished this, its led me to listen to more digital. Sounds about the same, much less physical interaction/intrusion into the listening experience.
 
I think that because I'm a tinkerer, it comes down to rolling coupling caps, resistor types and tubes in preamp stages of receivers and integrateds so there's more than the media in play in balancing decisions.
It's also about balancing the circuitry in a preamp where the phono stage might use one section with one set of resistors, caps and tubes and the line stage may use another section with a separate set of resistors, caps and tubes.
In post #16, I was citing past history as if I were back in 2003-2005, whereas my evaluation now has more to do with balancing preamp sections in gear and all the things I account for when doing that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom